On 26/06/2018 16:44, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 05:31:27PM +0200, Balazs Lengyel wrote:
Hello Juergen,
Sorry the wording was misleading. I want these capabilities both as state
data AND as instance-data-files, because
there is a need to know this information before you ever see the real
network node. How about the following?
"YANG servers SHOULD document server capabilities that are available via
Netconf/Restconf (as YANG defined data) also using instance-data-files."
I am against this. I think we should standardize the format and not
how the format is used. And it remains unclear why this would be a
SHOULD or how one implements this SHOULD and in which cases one can
ignore it. Again, I do not like to mix specification of mechanisms
with the specification of policies how mechanisms are to be used.
+1.
I think that the draft should just give examples of how it may be used,
probably in an appendix. Or if we want to standardize capabilities then
that should be a separate draft that depends on this one.
Thanks,
Rob
/js
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
